history

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies that the trail is newest first, includes a best-effort cause, and lists event types (action|disappeared|appeared). It does not mention aspects like response format, pagination, or performance, but it gives a solid behavioral overview sufficient for a read-only audit tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('VRAM audit trail, newest first'), followed by what it records and filters. Every sentence adds value: the cause detail, filter options, and the direct question it answers. No redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the moderate complexity (4 optional params, no required fields, no output schema), the description is fairly complete for a read-only history tool. It explains what the data is, filters available, and the kind of question it answers. However, it lacks specifics on return format or how to interpret the 'cause' field, which might be needed for advanced use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by model, type, limit, and since, but provides minimal extra detail beyond the schema property names. For example, it explains 'since' as an ISO floor, which is useful, but does not elaborate on accepted formats for 'type' or 'model', leaving room for ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving the VRAM audit trail, sorted newest first, showing actions like unload/ensure_free/warm and model/process appearance/disappearance with causes. It explicitly mentions filtering by model, type, limit, and since, and answers a specific question ('what happened to model X?'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vram_status or list_loaded.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for auditing historical events and answering questions about changes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vram_status or trend. It provides some context (audit trail) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.